<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>This is very good point. There is another important factor that I am going to try to explain. Someone expert in controls can help us here. I think that is called natural frequency of the control system. If the the human natural frequency is close to the TX/RX combo that will be a huge problem since the control system won't be stable. In other worlds if the TX/RX latency is very small but the natural frequencies are close to each other it could be very bad results. Well, I think this is very difficult to measure but I think this additional factor should be of consideration. <BR><BR>Vicente "Vince" Bortone<BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels@cox.net><BR>To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:07:47 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious<BR><BR>I think it's amusing that a year or so ago nobody had ever even heard of <BR>latency. Now it is THE NUMBER ONE technical specification to consider.<BR><BR>Keep in mind that radio latency is one to two orders of magnitude less <BR>than the "human" latency (reaction time) that we must all deal with. <BR>That runs about 215 milliseconds on average.<BR><BR>Test yours: http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR></div></body></html>